About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)
will oppose hagel no matter what. >> i believe he's the wrong person to lead the pentagon at this perilous and consequential time. >> tea party senator ted cruz tried to gin up an old conservative bogeyman. >> i'd like to draw your attention to an interview you did in 2009 with al jazeera. >> but here's the real reason. these guys don't want chuck hagel in the defense department. this is the bomb bomb iran crowd. you see, mccain and graham have led the charge for possible war against the iranians as well as syria. chuck hagel sees war as an absolute last resored. it that's why president obama picked him. the two share similar views in philosophy as the obama administration attempts to define the role of the united states in the transition to a post-superpower world. their philosophy is this. the united states must get out of these massive land wars, iraq and afghanistan, and if possible avoid future large-scale war. despite all of the posturing and starcraft, hagel's nomination, well, is not in jeopardy. not one senator who previously voiced support for hagel has changed his or her mind. i
103 different stem -- science, technologies, engineering and math -- programs within the pentagon alone. consolidating those would save $1.7 billion over the next ten years. these are programs that are not necessarily initiated by congress, by the way. so they do have the flexibility to make those changes. department of defense tuition assistance program totally duplicates our veterans tuition assistance program. so you can do in service have this access to tuition while in service and then have the identical tuition access afterwards and you can claim them both. there's nothing wrong with wanting togy an educational benefit to our troops, but we don't need to do it twice. that's a significant savings of $4.5 billion. alternative energy. we have a department of energy. their whole goal is to work on alternative energy and renewable energy and efficiency within energy. the department of defense is spending $700 million a year on research in alternative energy that totally duplicates everything we're doing everywhere else. so there's $00700 million that we should not be spending at
from georgetown, serve as my chief of staff at the c.i.a. and then followed me to the pentagon as my chief of staff. and also someone who's had a public affairs at the pentagon, george little, who is also someone who both graduated and later taught here at georgetown. talented young individuals who have been at my side every day for the last four years at both the c.i.a. and the pentagon, and i am deeply grateful for their work for me and on behalf of the nation and i am deeply grateful for georgetown for training such extraordinary public servants. and speaking of extraordinary public servants, i think many in this audience know that there's a georgetown professor that the president has nominated to serve as the next secretary of defense, chuck hagel, and i am confident and i've expressed that confidence publicly that the men and women of the department of defense will have the kind of advocate they need as the nation emerges from more than a decade of war. lastly, i'm honored to be here, as i said, as a catholic and as a proud graduate of another jesuit institution, santa clara uni
. as is widely recognized, sequestration over the next 10 years apply to the pentagon budget would only reduce it in inflation adjusted terms to what it was in 2007 a. the most powerful military in the world -- 2007, as the most powerful military in the world engaged in a war in iraq and the challenge in afghanistan. if members of congress pay attention to the facts, they will see a clear path to dramatically reduce pentagon spending without undermining america's position as being the most powerful nation on the planet. and nobody has done a better job of highlighting a path forward, an area of opportunity, than walter pinkus writhing on the pages of the "washington post" over the last couple years as he details the sweep of our nuclear weapons program and the spending trajectory. this morning's latest offering should be required reading for every member of congress and the ones who whine the loutest should be forced to read it -- loudest should be forced to read it twice. he details a vast array of nuclear weapons already deployed, ready to be deployed within 30 minutes, a relic of our conten
at the pentagon and military readiness and what that will mean. >> he is at the pentagon now moments away from being sworn in. it could be kathleen seb i will sibilius. chuck hagel has my money. i will be there. if it's not chuck hagel, i will walk out. >> in protest? >> yeah. we wanted hagel. what's going on? >> quick story, public policy poling who we know ppp polled. they did a very, very important study, bill. they polled democrats and republicans to find out who their favorite fried chicken restaurant was. and they put it up against kfc. >> yeah. >> and chick-fil-a. >> popeye's. >> they just put it betweenthies two. i am with you. i say popeye's. popeye's keeps it real but kfc and democrats. democrats perform kfc while 48% of republicans chose chick-fil-a. >> of course. they are homophobic anti-marriage equality. >> exactly. what i found even more interesting out of this pole pole se /* /* poll, 43% of republicans say the nasty it al y'all food restaurant is quote a quality source of authenticethnic food. 43% of republicans say olive guardn is a quali
.2 trillion in cuts, half of it in the pentagon. across-the-board cuts, right? indiscriminate cuts. >> absolutely. >> bill: if it had been $10 trillion, half in the pentagon and half in the programs, the tea parties would have still said bring it on. right? that's their attitude. >> it is entirely possible. this is a group like many throughout the history of congress campaigned against government. ran against the congress. but unlike most in history never found that they had to make the transformation into governing. at some point, you have to be for something. you have to govern. even if you're for decreasing the size of government, you have to find a responsible way to do it. this is not responsible in any way. it cuts the good with the bad the efficient with the inefficient. it is going to cost us more money. when we breach the contracts in defense. so it is not the least bit rational. those that are saying that well, this is not a big deal, it is a small amount. it is a big amount and when you compound the fact that it's taking place now not over full year but over much less th
was the police chief in arlington, virginia. that is where the pentagon was. what i learned that day is if this country >> now i wondered in the last decade how many people have to get murdered in a mass murder for it to be enough? i've been wrong time after time after time. i'm a grand pap i have little kids at home. are 20 babies be enough. that's what we're asking for? when was that gun bought? [applause] >> i'm a law enforcement guy too. i had your job in connecticut some years ago. i want to say, nobody in law enforcement ever thinks we're doing enough. nobody ever says we can go home and stop trying to to do better. so as much as we may agree with you that the united states department of justice and local and state police forces are trying to enforce these laws as agress ily as possible. i think you need more resources and you need criminal background checks. so you can know how to keep these weapons, all weapons out of the hands who shouldn't have them, criminals, domestic abusers, the severe mentally ill. would you agree that the criminal background check expansion into priva
of improving efficiency within the pentagon. i would say that applies to all the other agencies as well. secondly, most of the concern about sequestration is focused on readiness and training, which is absolutely true. if you talk to the lawyers that work with the defense contractors, they think they will have a field day care and some had testimony last year that the legal hassles emanating from sequestration may eat up a lot of their savings. but beyond that, there are a lot of dangerous places in the world. and what we do is try to develop capability to deal with the unknowable contingencies of what could happen at a place like syria or iran or north korea. with less money, you can prepare for future contingencies. the point is that it does not just readiness. it hurts us in the real world today. there are lots of options to deal with this. as was mentioned, the house passed bills twice last year to substitute sequestration's savings for other more targeted savings so that you save this amount of money, you're still fiscally responsible, but you don't get defense and these domestic p
for the director of intelligence or the defense intelligence agency? and that is part of the pentagon? caller: the defense intelligence agency, we are under the dod. host: what are you hearing about your job? caller: because i am a civilian, i'm liable to be placed on furlough at least one day a week, potentially 22 days until the end of the fiscal year. unfortunately, paying my half of the rent with a roommate at $1,200 a month prior to facilities, i'm going to have many difficulties with living with another analyst, just trying to afford our rent, as well as part of any food or any other expenses. host: could you have taken a job in the private sector and made more? caller: absolutely. i got a college degree try to join the intelligence agency, because i intended to serve this country. i do not wear a uniform, but i go to work every day for the defense of this nation. host: steve, from maryland, part of the energy department. caller: i am a fairly senior person. i understand the plight of folks at lower levels. the point is i have been working for the federal government for about 32 years.
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)